I love being right. F35B it is then. For now...

'tsz52' agree there is a lot of old conjectural stuff about SRVL out there and we DO need the new stuff. Because it seems to be vital to CVF (even if in practice it is not) the public NEEDS TO KNOW!

I have read somewhere that the F-35 brakes are excellent including the F-35B for SRVL. Consider the groundspeed - approach speed minus WOD. The F-35B has a switch that cuts the engine when wheels compress on touchdown for VLs. I imagine that will be used for SRVLs also. The 3BSN [3 Bearing Swivel Nozzle] can go to 95 degrees so perhaps that 5 degree backwards will be used during engine rundown after touchdown. Remember computers control everything - the pilot is along for the ride mostly or as much as required anyway. The STO can be completely automatic as can the VL. Watch for the news about completely automatic SRVLs for F-35Bs. With already the venerable VACC Harrier showing the way.

SpazSinbad wrote:
'tsz52' agree there is a lot of old conjectural stuff about SRVL out there and we DO need the new stuff. Because it seems to be vital to CVF (even if in practice it is not) the public NEEDS TO KNOW!

Steady on. I'd estimate that fewer than 50% of the conversations I overhear on the train in the morning involve SRVL glideslope and landing point.

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta strongly endorsed US Marine
Corps aviation and voiced his continued support for the stealthy
Lockheed Martin F-35B jump-jet and Bell-Boeing MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor
aircraft on 17 May.

"Marine air is what we need for the future," Panetta told a crowd of
marines during a commemoration ceremony marking a century of USMC
aviation. He praised the USMC's air arm for its flexibility and
adaptability.

"There is no force in the world that can match the Marine Corps'
ability to conduct agile and flexible expeditionary operations," he
says.

Moreover, the USMC can conduct those operations on short notice and with overwhelming force.

It is because of those reasons that the USMC needs the short take-off
vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B version of the tri-service Joint Strike
Fighter, Panetta says. He notes that earlier in the year he cleared the
variant from "probation" because the once-troubled F-35B is "meeting
requirements."

"The Marines need a fifth-generation fighter for the future, and they will have it," Panetta declares.

The secretary also praised the MV-22 tilt-rotor. The tilt-rotor affords the USMC agility and flexibility, he says.

The F-35 Lightning II is making good progress through flight
testing this year, a top Lockheed Martin official says. Most of the
biggest challenges faced by the programme should be well on their way to
being fixed by the later part of the year.

One major issue that has recently popped up on the US Navy's F-35C
variant is that the aircraft's tail-hook has had to be redesigned. That
is because the existing design has failed to catch an arresting cable
during trials. Lockheed is working on a new improved hook design that
should fix the problem.

"We have modified the hook pointwith a lower center of gravity," says
Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed's vice president for F-35 programme integration
and business development. Additionally, "we've redesigned the hold-down
damper."

The new design is scheduled for its preliminary design review in "the
summer." That will be followed by a critical design review in the
fourth quarter.

After the new hook design undergoes shore-based qualification trails,
the F-35C will undergo sea trials on a carrier in late 2013 or early
2014.

Lockheed is also set to test fixes to the jet's troublesome
helmet-mounted display (HMD) this summer, O'Bryan says. Lockheed has
reached an agreement with the US government on the HMD requirements,
which will help the company to fix imagery lag on the helmet by tweaking
the system's software, he says.

The company is also adding micro inertial measurement units (IMU) to
the helmet and pilot's seat to dampen out jittery images. "We're going
to fly those micro-IMUs this summer," O'Bryan says.

Lockheed hopes that the new ISIE-11 camera, which replaces the
existing ISIE-10 cameras, will resolve jet's night vision acuity
problems. The new system will undergo testing at MIT's Lincoln Labs
later this summer. The system will now consist of two ISIE-11 cameras,
one of which will be mounted in the helmet and another on the canopy
bow, and imagery pumped in from the F-35's six distributed aperture
system (DAS) infrared cameras.

"We're optimistic, we've got a good plan," O'Bryan says.

Meanwhile, the pilots have started to test the imagery from the
distributed aperture system. Initial results look to be very promising,
O'Bryan says. But there will need to be tweaks as flight tests reveal
potential issues.

Other avionics tests are proceeding well. The F-35 has already
started testing the Link-16 data-link and will soon start to test the
variable message format link which is needed for the close air support
mission. There are also ongoing tests with the radar, electronic
warfare, and infrared targeting system, which are needed for the release
of the Block 2A training software.

On the flight sciences side, the US Marine Corps short take-off
vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B test programme is further along than that
of the F-35C. The previously troubled B-model is now running 20% ahead
of this year's planned test schedule, O'Bryan says.

The F-35B has flown at altitudes over 49,000ft and has hits speeds of
Mach 1.4. That's just shy of the F-35's required 50, 000 ft ceiling and
Mach 1.6 design speed limit, he says. The B-model has also flown at its
maximum airspeed of 630 knots and has achieved its maximum 7G limit.

"It's about over 50% complete with its clean-wing full-envelop test points," O'Byan says.

The F-35C is also about 20% ahead of this year's flight test plan,
O'Bryan says. Like the F-35B, the C-model has flown out to 630 knots,
but the naval variant is required to hit 700 knots. The C-model has also
flown at 45, 000 ft and at speeds of Mach 1.4. It has also hit its
maximum 7.5G limit.

That means the USN version has completed about 40% of its clean configuration flight envelope test points, O'Bryan says.

Out at Edwards AFB, California, F-35A will have completed 45% of the
totality of its flight test points by the end of the year. By the fourth
quarter, the F-35A should have competed its first full lifetime of
durability testing, O'Bryan says. There have thus far been no new issues
that have arisen as a result of the tests.

'That, I'm happy to say, is going well," he says.

The all versions of the jet have started flying with external stores.
Later this year, the aircraft will enter into high angle of attack
testing up to 50angle of attack, O'Bryan says. The programme will also
start wet runway tests, engine air starts, and weapons releases.

The US Marine Corps' F-35B initial training fleet at Eglin AFB,
Florida, has started local area flights, the US Air Force announced 22
May.

"Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 (VMFAT-501) has had an
exciting year with the arrival of our first three aircraft in January,
the official roll out ceremony in February and now generating sorties
along with other military service and contract partners here," says USMC
Lt Col David Berke, commander of VMFAT-501.

USMC Maj Joseph Bachmann, one of two test pilots assigned to the base, flew the first F-35B local area flight.

The Marines will initially fly the local area operations flying the
F-35B in conventional mode before moving on to short takeoffs and
vertical landings (STOVL) mode operations.

If all goes smoothly, the 33rd Fighter Wing, which hosts VMFAT-501
and USAF's 58th Fighter Squadron, should start the F-35's operational
utility evaluation later this year. A successful evaluation would enable
the USAF and USMC to start the F-35 training syllabus.

Lockheed Martin remains mum about whether an oxygen system flaw on its
F-22 fighter might also plague its sibling, the F-35, but defense
analysts say there are reasons to worry.

After a dozen incidents of F-22 pilots losing consciousness mid-flight,
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta placed restrictions last week on the Air
Force's Raptor fleet amid safety concerns. Panetta has restricted the
distances the advanced jets can fly and ordered a fleet-wide
installation of an automatic backup oxygen system.

While defense insiders say those restrictions aren't that confining,
military experts say similar problems might hit the F-35 fighter, also
made by Lockheed.

Richard Aboulafia, a tactical aviation expert at the Teal Group, says
"it sounds like there is commonality between them," referring to the
F-22 and F-35 fighters.

"This would imply that any lessons learned from testing the F-22
[oxygen] system should be migrated over to the F-35 as quickly as
possible," Aboulafia says.

Whether Lockheed Martin and Pentagon officials already are taking such
steps is unclear. Lockheed officials did not respond to multiple
requests for comment. Defense trade publications have reported the
fighters' oxygen systems, made by a subcontractor, are indeed similar,
but not carbon copies. (end of excerpt)

"They are different systems," Lockheed spokesman Michael Rein says. "The F-35 and F-22 have common aircraft oxygen system suppliers but the systems are very different...The two systems each utilize a similar approach and architecture, but they are packaged and implemented differently.

"The F-35 program continuously monitors issues present in other aircraft assessing applicability to our current design," Rein says. "The program has leveraged the lessons learned from F-22 development to enhance the F-35 across all subsystems, including the Onboard Oxygen Generating System."..."

Boeing Super Hornet faces emerging anti-access challenges

The US Navy is upgrading its fleet of Boeing F/A-18E/F fighters
with new capabilities, but analysts question the Super Hornet's utility
against emerging anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) threats.

"Upgrading
the F/A-18 family is a good idea, and it could extend their service
lives," says analyst Mark Gunzinger of the Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments (CSBA). "That being said, F/A-18-based platforms
are short-range, lack unrefueled persistence, and are best suited for
operations in relatively uncontested airspace."

But
in the future, uncontested airspace is unlikely to remain the norm as
potential adversaries develop means to deny US forces access to a
region, US Department of Defense (DoD) officials and analysts say. Many
future conflict zones are likely to be heavily defended by new
surface-to-air systems, advanced aircraft and other weapons such as
anti-ship cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.

The DoD is
developing a concept called AirSea battle, which calls for the USN and
US Air Force to work together to an unprecedented degree to overcome
those challenges.

The problem is most acute in the Pacific
theatre, where the USN's aircraft carrier fleet would be the tip of the
spear. The mainstay of the carrier decks is the F/A-18 fleet, but those
aircraft might not be up to the task.

"This isn't just a navy issue
of course, the same can be said about the air force's F-15 and F-16
fleet," Gunzinger says. "All three legacy fighter platforms would be
outmatched in a fight against the [Chinese Chengdu] J-20 or [Russian
Sukhoi] PAK-FA."

Analyst Jan Van Tol, also of the CSBA, says that
the USN needs ask itself just how much effort it should expend in
trying to upgrade its Super Hornet fleet. It also needs to ask itself
just how useful those legacy aircraft are and over what time period. It
also needs to ask itself what role those aircraft might still play in
the emerging battlespace.

"How long before the sustained
high-end A2/AD threat becomes really formidable and flying such aircraft
becomes like flying Brewster Buffaloes in 1942?" he asks.

Gunzinger
says that the in the western Pacific, the A2AD threat is already
formidable enough that it poses a lethal problem for fourth-generation
fighters. Iran could also pose similar challenges by about 2020, he
says.

But, moreover, the carrier itself might be challenged in certain theatres as it nears the enemy's coast.

"Regardless
of aircraft survivability, you still need to get the carriers close
enough-tough to do early in a fight against [anti-ship cruise missiles]
and [anti-ship ballistic missiles]," Gunzinger says.

One
potential solution is to increase the distance the carrier might stay
offshore, but that would require longer ranged stealth aircraft.

Current
USN plans call for the F/A-18E/F to remain in service well into the
2030s before they are eventually replaced by an F/A-XX. The FA-XX,
should it become a reality, is expected to be stealthy, have increased
kinematic performance and offer significantly longer range compared to
existing naval aircraft.

Meanwhile, later this decade, the
stealthy Lockheed Martin F-35C will join the Super Hornet on the carrier
deck, but the older aircraft will dominate the air wing for the
foreseeable future. Even so, the F-35C probably does not have the kind
of range the USN really needs.

With the US strategic shift
towards the Pacific theatre, the problem of conducting operations inside
A2AD environments has become a much more pertinent topic within the
halls of the Pentagon.

When asked about plans for the future of
naval aviation operating inside those environments, the USN leadership
declined to comment. But in a separate interview about the service's
plans for the Super Hornet fleet, Captain Frank Morley, the USN's
programme manager for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Growler, says that the
Super Hornet can and will play a role fighting in emerging A2AD
environments.

The Super Hornet is designed for "balanced survivability," Morley says.

It
will use a combination of signature management, stand-off weapons,
counter-measures and jamming support from its EA-18G sibling to survive
in heavily defended areas.

Morley says that the USN will not
rely on any one weapon to fight in those complex environments but rather
it will bring a host of capabilities to bear to defeat those threats.

That means that the Super Hornet will be able to use coordinates
generated by its sensors, for example its Raytheon APG-79 active
electronically scanned array (AESA) radar or its Raytheon AN/ASQ-228
Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) pod, and compare
that to a precise onboard imagery database to generate precise weapons
quality coordinates.

Every Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler will eventually be retrofitted with the new technology, Morley says.

Meanwhile, the Boeing is about one year into a development programme
to field a new infrared search and track (IRST) pod that should be
fielded on the Super Hornet fleet by late 2016, Morley says. Developed
in conjunction with Lockheed Martin, the new sensor is an evolution of
the Northrop Grumman F-14D Tomcat's AN/AAS-42 IRST camera. Boeing
upgraded the Tomcat's camera technology for foreign F-15 sales, Morley
says. The variant of the sensor that will be added to the Super Hornet
is a further development of Boeing's F-15 developments.

"It's an evolutionary development path," Morley says. "So it's not
just the same sensor being thrown in, but certainly you're not starting
from a clean sheet of paper either."

For the Super Hornet, the USN opted for a podded-solution. A pod
avoids retrofit costs, Morley says. An internal system would require
modifications to the aircraft's outer mold-line and avionics hardware
changes, which would require extensive testing. Nor does the USN need
the pod for every mission, Morley says. The IRST is only required for
air-to-air focused missions like fleet air defence or air superiority.
As such, the USN will only buy about 170 pods, which it will use only as
needed, Morley says. That should save the USN a considerable sum of
money.

One of the unique design features of the new IRST pod is that it is
built into an external fuel tank. Because the aircraft's centerline
station is the optimum position for the IRST pod, it has to take the
place of the Super Hornet's ever-present drop-tank.

"It's really the best place to put a podded solution for an IRST mouth on an airplane," Morley says.

The centerline station is far enough forward that it affords a
podded-sensor an unobstructed up and down view, Morley says, which is
critical for the sensor to be effective. In order to preserve the Super
Hornet's range, the USN opted to have the sensor built into the forward
half of the fuel tank. That way, some two-thirds of the fuel is still
available for use.

Pilots can still jettison the pod for the sake of safety, but they
would only do so in the most extreme of circumstances, Morley says.

In the future, the USN is hoping to further exploit the capabilities
of the APG-79 while adding further combat identification methods,
electronic attack and electronic protection upgrades on to the jet.

But one of the most important planned capabilities will be better
multi-sensor integration (MSI). The aircraft will eventually be able to
correlate all of the disparate information generated by the radar,
ATFLIR, electronic warfare systems and data-links into one clear
tactical picture, Morley says.

"One thing we are actively doing is modifying in a somewhat
fundamental way the way we display a lot of the information," Morley
says. "Because there is a significant amount of information coming on
the airplane."

The USN is looking at programmes like the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
and elements of the F-35 programme for ideas. But the USN is not
limiting itself--there are other concepts found within industry that are
compelling, Morley says.

That could lead the USN to consider installing new cockpit displays
into the Super Hornet in the future. One possibility is Boeing large
area display technology, Morley says.

"The F135 is required to provide 43,000lb of thrust in afterburner mode. The XTE68/LF1 is demonstrating a thrust improvement between 5% and 10%, potentially raising the single-engined fighter's overall performance from more than 45,100lb thrust to 47,300lb thrust."

"P&W eyes durability lift for stovl F135

PRATT & WHITNEY has quietly received approval to launch a second engine demonstrator focused on inserting durability improvements into the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) version of the F135.

The XTE69/LFU1 demonstrator aircraft will in late fiscal year 2014 begin testing upgrades, with P&W confirming that it entered production. The company's XTE68/LF1 demonstrator will enter testing in the fourth quarter of this year."

Do any of our USA posters, can shed light on Project on Government Oversight (POGO)?

Does F-35 Have Same Oxygen Problems As F-22? More Oversight Needed, Say Experts

(Source: Project on Government Oversight; issued May 30, 2012)

Given the recent allegations by F-22 Raptor pilots that the aircraft has
potentially deadly oxygen-system problems, it’s not surprising that
questions are also being raised about the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter—which has strikingly similar design elements. Lockheed Martin,
which makes both aircrafts, has recently said that “the F-35 and F-22
have common aircraft oxygen system suppliers, but the systems are very
different.”

But a ‘concerned’ POGO commenter asked us if there’s any chance the F-35 could have
the same oxygen problems, anyways. Not content to simply parrot
Lockheed’s answer, we decided to pose the question to two defense
experts: Winslow Wheeler, the director of POGO's Straus Military Reform
Project and Pierre Sprey, who co-designed the F-16 and A-10 jets.

You can read their full responses below, but the short answer is, there
is still a lot more monitoring that needs to be done on the F-35 before
Lockheed or the Air Force can conclusively say that the aircraft is safe
(not to mention, the F-22—which very clearly appears to have
problems—needs to be grounded until the oxygen malfunction is resolved.)
The elite pilots who fly these planes deserve prompt, complete
independent oversight.

Pierre Sprey says:

Given that all previous stealth aircrafts—the F-117, the B-2 and the
F-22—have each shown evidence that their stealth coatings can be
extremely toxic to production workers, pilots, and/or maintainers, it
would be unconscionable for the Congressional Armed Services Committees
and the Department of Defense (DoD) Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation (OT&E) to fail to demand an immediate, intensive
toxicological monitoring of the F-35's stealth coatings.

Specifically, levels of all toxic components of the F-35's stealth
materials that could be breathed by production workers, pilots and
maintainers need to be meticulously, frequently, and accurately
monitored on the production line, in the maintenance hangars, and in
flight… Congress and the Director of OT&E should demand an
unclassified report, within 4 months, of the quantitative results of
this monitoring, together with an assessment of the potential long-term
and short-term health effects on workers, pilots and maintainers by
independent toxicologists from the Department of Health and Human
Services, not from DoD.

There have been no public reports of it. Both the On-Board Oxygen
Generating System and other suspects, like the stealth materials, have
technical differences—they are not identical to what's in/on the F-22.
It is something that should be closely monitored for the F-35. I doubt
the Air Force or Lockheed will be forthcoming, and the pilots (test
pilots both corporate and service) may also be less inclined to come
forward than National Guard or active service pilots. It will be tough
to get an independent view unless someone wakes up and demands a
Government Accountability Office or Inspector General inquiry.

Unbelievable...of all the people out there they can find to comment, they pick Wheeler and Sprey.. :facepalm:

Sprey in particular did not do any useful work on design of the F16 or A10 as he has no relevant experience.

I quote from a response by the USN to one of Sprey's design proposals:

"In common with past papers by the same author, this study contains
many fallacious assumptions, half-truths, distortions, and erroneous
extrapolations. Unsubstantiated opinions are presented as facts. "

I think it was a group with some right ideas (ie not everything must be gold plated) but the big names of that group went way too far. You can't produce a modern fighter without appropriate radars and other things. It will just be functionally useless. Considering that much up the upgrade programs for the F-16 and A-10 have been centered on giving them back the things groups like this did not want them to have because combat, even low level combat, has shown what force multipliers those things are you would think this group would learn its lesson.

So, basically, anything new then? C130J? What'd that do wrong? There's some actual turkeys on that list but there's a pile of stuff that seems to work fine in service today there?

LM jumped ship from the Eurolifter program and decided to tart up its exisiting C-130 design with a glass cockpit & new engines and cocked it up. Basically they did the usual car dealer trick of upping the spec of an old model to push more profits before a new model comes along, so still retains the original defects from the basic design with a few flash bits to tempt punters. AFAIK most of the issue were to do with the engines, relability and performance and the jet wash down the fuselage rendered the side jump door unusable for the danger it impossed on the paratroopers (a USAF KPI). Ironically now the A400M is nearing service LM started to propose larger bodied C-130's as the main gear bottle neck on the cargo floor is a major limitation carried over from the original design and one they should really have done when coming up with the C-130J rather than do it on the cheap as they did

Ah..thank you I was just thinking we'd bought some C130J and they seemed fine, wasn't sure what was wrong with them that POGO wanted to can them. I know from that list there's some stuff that did get killed (Crusader and Comanche for instance) and B1 probably should have stayed dead at the time as it was an empty election promise that Reagan made in total ignorance of why Carter had cancelled it - namely Carter was aware of the then totally secret stealth programs and was expecting B2 to make the B1B utterly pointless.

Ironically, the Bone finally found a use in blowing up mud huts and blokes on bicycles but that was pretty accidental.

Comanche, they may as well have just built, given the amount of money wasted in designing a "cheaper" successor.

The B-1 will be incredibly valuable in any future conflict basically as a platform for throwing a ton of cruise missiles at someone at once. There is a reason the thing was the first platform for JASSM-ER integration as I think it will play a big role in any attempt to swamp an integrated air defense system with inbound weapons if there is a major conflict at any point in the future. Also can I add that the B-1 should get credit for just looking and sounding badass. They are a joy to watch and more than that to hear fly. Nice deep roar. Awesome lines. Just a cool looking airplane.

Oh, yeah, it worked out alrighty - I'm just saying with the mission it was given, in a cold war, B1B was a pointless drain on resources. I have a wonderful image of one pulling into a roll, drawing vortexes off both wingtips, snapping towards the ground like a fighter and I think it looks fabulous
Never heard one running tho